Why the difference in nomenclature?

[OpnDownfall]

Looking at the historical record, it does seem that the Union looked to nature for their battle (and Army) names whereas the south preferred man-made sources.
Although, as already noted, these seemed to be a general rule rather than a hard and fast requirement.
It may be that the Union Army was following a general protocol from their previous experience in war, Mexico, where rivers were preferred (but not universal). IMO, if that is true, then it is likely that the Reb's consciously chose 'Not' to follow the precedent of their enemies and went for the Revolutionary precedent from America's history.
The majority of southerners were not as afraid of Revolutionary War precedents as the more politically correct southern leadership; i.e., slave owners.

[gary]

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

The answer to this is simple. The yanks were lost!

I retract my answer in light of Larry's infalliable logic.

[Oxkern]

The difference in names has only confused me once: I ended up in Virginia's Bull Run park rather than the Manassas Battlefield.

Outside of re-enactments, do people consciously choose one side's names over another?

[gary]

Modernly, some folks use one name over another because of bias or sympathy for one side or another. Me, I use what the National Park Service uses. It reduces the confusion in my simple mind.

[ole]

What Gary said. When I know there are several names, I use the one easiest to remember -- frequently without knowing who coined it, always not caring.

ole

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by ole

What Gary said. When I know there are several names, I use the one easiest to remember -- frequently without knowing who coined it, always not caring.

ole

Though not infalliable (to use Gary's word?), there's some logic to his and Ole's responses. Yes, it does happen. The part about the revolutionary war tradition is interesting and a concept that is new to me. (many concepts are new to me, that's nothing new). As for Antietam Creek versus Sharpsburg, that one had to be a conscious choice by some bureaucratic entity? Stones River for instance could well have been called Murfreesboro by the local populace, but for the most part isn't. I suspect Gary's conclusion works for most of us. Yet, I'd be curious, and am, about the prevailing logic, if any.

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by gary

Modernly, some folks use one name over another because of bias or sympathy for one side or another. Me, I use what the National Park Service uses. It reduces the confusion in my simple mind.

Sir, are you suggesting there's bias with respect to one's views on the War of Northern Agression? nawh!

[unionblue]

Larry,

I agree wholeheartedly!

The very idea that bias could rear it's ugly head with regard to one's personal views over The War of The Rebellion is completely absurd!

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[M E Wolf]

Dear List Members,

It is just a personal opinion however, cities, towns and such can disappear, be renamed, be common with other neighboring areas within the same state/commonwealth -- however, the rivers, streams and such keep rolling and exist with minor changes by nature. The monument of nature's creation per se, lives longer than any man-made.

Just some thoughts.

Respectfully submitted for consideration,
M. E. Wolf

[bankerpapaw]

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

Sir, are you suggesting there's bias with respect to one's views on the War of Northern Agression? nawh!

Suh, being from Arkansas, I agree with you wholeheartly. I am your obeidient servant, Bankerpaw